-
ITAT - Share application money cannot be treated as loan amount merely because there is a delay in issuance of shares by the subsidiary in the name of the assesse, which was duly explained by the assesse.
Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5893 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
HC - In applying the ‘extrapolation’ principle of Eusafali 90 ITR 271 (SC), the AO is entitled to make an estimation based on guesswork. However, the estimate must not be arbitrary and should be based on material
Prakash K. Kankariya vs. JCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5892 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - Funds received from self-owned Mauritius company through banking channel with necessary statutory approvals into the assessee’s NRI A/c, not unexplained income when the assessee had furnished enough evidences including a certificate from Mauritius Company.
DCIT vs. Madhusudan Rao Lagadapati
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5891 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
HC - Explanation added to Section 80 IB(9) retrospectively by Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 is unconstitutional, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is liable to be struck down
Niko Resources Limited vs. UOI
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5890 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 80-IB(9)
-
HC - Property advances cannot be deemed as sales for a real-estate developer. Addition not justified as assessee was consistently following project completion method. Insistence of Revenue to follow percentage completion method as per Accounting Standard (AS) - 7 is not justified. Previous years ‘Project Completion’ method was accepted to be in line with AS-7.
CIT vs. Malibu Estate P Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5889 (HC-DELHI)
-
SC - Validity of an Explanation added retrospectively to Section 26(4) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act - While an amendment to overrule a judgement is not valid, it is permissible to retrospectively alter the character of the levy so as to save it from illegality.
ACIT (Agr. IT) vs. Netley ‘B’ Estate
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5877 (SC)
-
HC - If AO does not conduct proper inquiry, the obligation to do so is on the CIT(A) & ITAT
CIT. vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5876 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 68
-
ITAT - Merely stating "Approved" is not sufficient sanction of CIT for reassessment and renders reopening void. CIT has to record his satisfaction.
Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5875 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections. 147, 151
-
ITAT - Reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted to only to examine the facts of a case, no matter how desirable that be, unless there is a reason to believe, rather than suspect, that an income has escaped assessment.
Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5874 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 147
-
HC - Expenditure made for construction/acquisition of new facility subsequently abandoned at the work-in-progress stage is allowable as incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business. The expenditure has to be claimed in the year in which the decision is taken to abandon the project.
Binani Cement Ltd. vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5873 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section. 37(1)
-
ITAT - Assessing Officer is directed to work out the disallowance u/s 14A as per Rule 8D2(iii) by taking average investment by excluding the investment in foreign subsidiaries.
Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5872 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance is applicable only to expenses remaining payable at year end, and not to expenses paid during year, therefore revision order u/s.263 for S.40(a)(ia) disallowance is not valid.
R Narayana Swamy vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5871 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Sections. 263, 40(a)(ia)
-
HC - Section 10A exemption is available even in a case of conversion of an existing unit into a STP unit applying Circular 1/2005.
CIT. vs. E 4 E Application Services P Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5870 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section.10A
-
HC - Sec 40A(3) is not absolute, circumstances enumerated in the CBDT Circular are not exhaustive and clause(j) of Rule 6DD must be liberally construed. Assessee having placed on record proof of cash purchases exceeding Rs.2500 and the identity of the payee has been established, disallowance u/s 40A(3) not called for.
Sri Laxmi Satyanarayana Oil Mill vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5869 (HC-AP) · Section. 40A(3)
-
SC - The judgments of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, to held that(1993 amendment in S.143(1A) w.e.f. 1989 is constitutionally valid and re-affirms that “income” u/s.143(1A) contemplates “losses” too) the retrospective effect given to the amendment would be arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as the provision, being a penal provision, would operate harshly on assessee are set aside.
CIT vs. Sati Oil Udyog Ltd & Anr
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5868 (SC) · Section 143(1A)
-
SC - Debenture interest is to be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) in the year in which payment was made even though assessee had spread over interest in its books of account over period of five years.
Taparia Tools Limited vs. JCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5867 (SC)
-
HC - Revision u/s.263 - Merger with appellate order - Clause (c) of the Explanation to Sec 263(1) has no application because the matters which have been considered and decided in the Appeal by the first appellate authority are being made subject matter of the revisional authority's order.
CIT vs. K. Sera Sera Productions Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5866 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 263
-
HC - Assessee companies suffered business loss on their sale of non - convertible debentures (‘NCDs’) at ‘nil’ consideration and such loss was business loss that constituted allowable deduction. Such transfer was not ‘colorable-device'.
CIT vs. Abhinandan Investment Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5865 (HC-DELHI)
-
SC - Donor can retain the right to use the gifted property and enjoy rent from it during his/her lifetime and “transfer” not vitiated u/s.123 of Transfer of Property Act.
Renikuntla Rajamma (D) By Lrs vs. K.Sarwanamma
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5855 (SC) · Section 123
-
HC - CBDT Order dated May 23, 1996 (as amended by order dated January 30, 1997, covers cases falling within jurisdictional HC rulings and not non-jurisdiction HC rulings (as in assessee’s case), therefore, single Judge was not justified in extending the benefit of the said Circular and waiving interest u/s 234B.
CCIT vs. UB Global Corporation Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5854 (HC-KARNATAKA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.